Socket 939 Roundup: Battle at the Top
by Wesley Fink on July 30, 2004 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Final Words
It was difficult to resist being a little sensationalist in this 939 roundup and titling the review, "Who needs 925X?" That would have been a fair title, however, since you can clearly see that all of the Socket 939/FX53 boards completely outperform Intel's top 560 on the top 925X motherboard. Even Media Encoding, the last bastion of Intel dominance, is now a dead heat with the new AutoGK benchmark.Any of the Socket 939 motherboards that we tested here would make a great home for a Socket 939 Athlon 64. They all perform very well at stock speed and any of them will serve you well. We even found that all six of the tested motherboards performed at the fastest timings available and a 2T Command Rate with 4 DIMMs on board, so even that is a non-issue.
However, in this go-round, there are a few criteria that begin to separate the boards that we tested. The two nForce3 Ultra motherboards did particularly well in Winstones, outperforming the VIA K8T800 PRO boards in these important benchmarks of overall real-world performance. We also found that the two nF3 boards in this roundup were consistent top performers, and, like other nF3-250 boards that we have tested, are complete with a working PCI/AGP lock for overclocking. This is not a criticism of VIA, because every VIA-based board that we tested in this roundup does indeed have a working lock. However, our concern remains that it sometimes took 2 or 3 revisions to get that working lock on the VIA boards - an issue that we have yet to see on any of the nForce3-250 boards. The good news is we are now confident that VIA has the PCI/AGP lock working, but there are boards floating around without this working feature. Our advice is to be cautious in a VIA purchase if this is an important specification for you. A little time for the market to settle should remove any concerns that you might have in buying a VIA K8T800 PRO chipset 939 or 754.
The KV2 Extreme is a remarkable step forward for ECS, and we can heartily recommend it as a good value if you plan to run only at stock speeds or you will only need modest overclocking capabilities. It is a very good effort at producing an Enthusiast-level ECS board. However, we think that this board needs to mature a bit more before it turns into a board that will satisfy most enthusiasts. We feel similarly about the MSI K8T Neo2-FIR, which was somewhat a surprise as the socket 754 K8T Neo was a favorite. Our concern is based on the fact that we went through 3 K8T Neo2 boards before we got one that really worked. That may just be coincidence, but it raises concern about the quality assurance of this particular product. The final board works very well, and is very fast at stock speed, but it falls well short of the remarkable overclocking capabilities of the sister K8N Neo2. A little time will likely take care of this issue, but we remain cautious for the time being.
Of our top four boards, we can honestly say that any of these 4 would be a great choice. The K8N Neo2 and Gigabyte K8NSNXP are both based on the nForce3 Ultra chipset, and the Abit AV8 and Asus A8V Deluxe Revision 2 are very clearly the top of the VIA boards, reaching our second best overclocks at 289 and 280. However, if you look carefully at the features, performance results, and just plain class in a market segment filled with top performers, the MSI K8N Neo2 stands out.
 |
Based on top performance, the full implementation of the nForce3 Ultra features, value, overclocking performance, and flexibility, the MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum emerges from a class of top Socket 939 Athlon 64 boards as our Gold Editors Choice. This makes the K8N Neo2 our choice as the best Athlon 64 motherboard that you can buy. MSI has produced two excellent motherboards in a row based on nVidia chipsets for Athlon 64. The K8N Neo for A64 Socket 754 was also one of our top choices for Single-Channel Athlon 64. The K8N Neo2 continues that performance as the top Athlon 64 motherboard that you can buy. |
The choice for Silver Editor's Choice is a bit more difficult. We could make arguments for the nF3 Ultra Gigabyte K8NSNXP-939, the VIA K8T800 PRO Abit AV8, or the VIA Asus A8V Deluse Rev. 2. However, when we look closely at value, we find the Abit and Asus are both much cheaper to buy than the Gigabyte, which sways our choice in those directions. As a result the Silver Editors Choice is a tie between two VIA K8T800 PRO motherboards - the Abit AV8 and the Asus A8V Deluxe Revision 2. Please note the award to Asus ONLY applies to Revision 2, since the first revision does not have a reliable working PCI/AGP lock.
 |
We are extremely pleased to award the Silver Editors Choice for best Athlon 64 Socket 939 motherboard to the Abit AV8. Abit proved you can build an excellent Enthusiast 939 motherboard, and have all the overclocking bells and whistles, with the VIA chipset. The Abit was not a standout in any one area in our tests, but it is a very balanced motherboard with all the Enthusiast features that we have come to expect from Abit motherboards. It is also an excellent value among Socket 939 motherboards. Abit has worked very hard to reach this level of performance with the VIA chipset, and they have produced a board that is really fun to use. |
|
It gives great pleasure to also award the AnandTech Silver Editors Choice to the Asus A8V Deluxe Revision 2. It took Asus quite a while to get to this point, but there is a lot to like, and little to dislike, with the A8V Deluxe Revision 2. The A8V is not generally the fastest board here, this distinction now belongs to the nF3 Ultra boards, but it is definitely one of the best overclockers in the entire roundup. Asus has finally delivered on the promise of that first A8V, which reached high but just could not quite make the cut. Revision 2 is all we hoped we would see, and Asus deserves congratulations for the perseverance to stay the course and finally deliver one of the best Socket 939 boards on the market. While we still lean toward the nVidia nForce3 Ultra as the better solution for round 2 of the Athlon 64 chipset wars, there is no doubt Asus has massaged the K8T800 PRO for all it's worth - delivering the kinds of headroom we didn't think would even be possible with the VIA chipset. We can only admire the kind of Engineering prowess that took the A8V to what we see today. |
There are no real losers in this roundup, but there are clearly some winners that stand above the crowd. We look forward to the evolution of the 939 as the mainstream Athlon 64 socket, because that will bring even more choices to the marketplace. For now, there are several outstanding homes for your new 939 CPU, but in the future there will be even more choices, and even more opportunites for a new winner to emerge. That's what makes this industry fun for some and maddening for others - there is always the possibility something better is just around the corner.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
83 Comments
View All Comments
Wesley Fink - Sunday, July 25, 2004 - link
In compiling benchmarks for the upcoming 925X roundup, we realized we had used a different setup for our 925X AutoGK tests in this review than the setup for 939. This caused lower results with the 925X than we achieved with the same setup.AutoGK results have been corrected, and now show essentially the same encoding performance with the DivX 5.1.1 codec on both Intel 560 and AMD FX53 processors with a slight advantage to Intel. Tests with the Xvid codec show almost the same equivalent results with a slight tilt toward AMD.
Graphs and review text have been corrected to reflect the corrected encoding results. Current AutoGK settings are 'no audio' and default '2CDs (1400Mb)' output size. We install and select Divx 5.1.1 instead of the included Xvid codec. Ripping is from the original DVD file for Chapter 9 of "Sum of All Fears". At present we use the latest release version of AutoGK, which is 1.25, though there are beta versions available through 1.48.
Wesley Fink - Saturday, July 24, 2004 - link
#61 - You are mistaken in saying we used the SAME CPU in comparing 875 and 925X. If you will check our review at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?... you will see that our comparison #2 was a 3.2E on the 925X to a 3.2 Northwood on 875. In fact we got a lot of flak from some readers because we didn't use the same CPU. We felt then, and still feel, the fairest comparison was the 875 with Northwood to a similar speed 775 with Prescott.Our options on 939 are a 3500+ (512k cache) at $500, a 3800+ (512k) at $700, or a FX53 (1MB cache) at $763. AMD is expected to announce price reductions soon, but those are our current 939 choices. Given those 3 options with prices beginning at $500, the FX53 is an easy recommendation.
Staples - Saturday, July 24, 2004 - link
Arrggg.Interesting numbers but I hate the fact that Anandtech keeps using the FXxx and only the FXxx. Sure I can now see that AMDs best wins over Intel's best but that is not really practical because I will never buy an FXxx. I want benchmarks between stuff the average consumer is going to buy. Most people including me are struck between.
875/865 and Northwood (non EE)
925x/915 and a Presscott (non EE)
AMD64 754 vs 939 chips and chipsets but NOT the FX series.
These testbeds have only added to a string of Anandtech blunders. Remember the 925x review which was supposed to compare the 875 against the 925x? Well to elimate as many variable as possible, you use the SAME cpu, not a Northwood in one and a Presscott in the other.
I love Anandtech and I usually only come here for reviews but I really wish the staff would put more scientific thought into their testbeds. I will never buy an FX series processor and neither will most people because they cost way too much. At least you can throw in a testbed or two of some processors that the common man will actually buy.
Hope this critical post circulates with the staff and is actually taken into consideration.
PrinceGaz - Saturday, July 24, 2004 - link
Would there really be any point in providing FSB adjustments above 300 on say the MSI K8N mobo?As far as I know there are only two reasons for increasing the FSB-- increasing the memory speed, and increasing CPU core speed on non-FX chips which don't have an upwardly adjustable multiplier.
Theres no point in increasing the FSB beyond the point where the memory can run at a 1:1 ratio, and your fastest DDR550 memory was only able to hit 290FSB (DDR580). Unless faster DDR memory becomes available (which seems unlikely as the focus for speed will switch to DDR2), then 300FSB is more than enough.
The only other reason for increasing the FSB would be if you were seriously overclocking a CPU. 300FSB is enough for a 50% overclock which is more than enough for anyone. Maybe if someone got the liquid nitrogen out they could take a 3500+ beyond 3.3GHz, but I'm sure those sort of people would have got the fastest FX instead so they could raise the multiplier and not have to worry about bus speeds holding them back.
Myself, I'm sure I'm not alone in holding out for S939 boards with PCI-Express support. And maybe a 90nm Athlon 64 if they arrive before the end of the year. And if the MSI K8N whatever that is available then is as good as the current ones, that'll probably be what I get.
Wesley Fink - Saturday, July 24, 2004 - link
#58 and others -The nForce3-250Gb and NForce3 Ultra do not provide a full integrated Gigabit LAN in the chip. They provide a MAC (Media Access Controller) and a dedicated Gigabit Ethernet PORT on the chip (nF30250GB and nF3-Ultra). This is then interfaced to any number of PHY (Physical Layer) Gigabit Ethernet Controllers.
To quote the nF3 Tech paper from nVidia:
"NVIDIA nForce solutions provide an industry-standard Reduced Gigabit Media Independent Interface (RGMII) for attachment of the 1000BASE-T Gigabit Ethernet PHY. The open, nonproprietary interface lets system designers interface the NVIDIA solution to Ethernet PHY from a variety of vendors. Consumers and enterprises all benefit from a broad range of competitive PHY offerings."
This means seeing a listing of a particlular Gigabit Eternet Controller does NOT mean an nForce3 board is not using the on-chip Ethernet.
If you look closely at the specs for the MSI, the Marvell LAN chip is spec'ed as PHY. It is also worth noting that the Marvell 88E1111 is the same chip nVidia used in their Reference designs for the nF3-250Gb and nF3-Ultra Reference Boards, but other brands can be used as you can see in the nVidia literature.
darklight0tr - Saturday, July 24, 2004 - link
Wesley,I was wondering how you determined that the MSI K8N Neo2 used the onboard nVIDIA LAN.
If you go to the MSI website and look at the specs for the board, it says that the Dual LAN ports are controlled by Realtek and Marvell controllers, respectively. The nVIDIA LAN is not used.
Is the board you tested different than the board listed on the MSI website?
Also, is there any particular reason that no nForce3 Ultra motherboards use the onboard nVIDIA LAN?
Drayvn - Friday, July 23, 2004 - link
I thought it was pretty widely known that a nVidia graphics card will be totally optimized on a nVidia mobo, so when testing the X800 on an nForce chipset, ull get lower performance numbers wouldnt u, and so wouldnt that muck up the test results?#53, it still does show how well the FX-53 does against a product that is coming out in 2 months doesnt, and this 3.6Ghz is 1.2 Ghz faster and still its being outperformed, so isnt this telling u that the FX-53 is the system to go for? No need to get upset about the intel chip not being out, get the FX-53 now!
vie2233hil - Friday, July 23, 2004 - link
has anybody seen A8V revision 2 anywhere?Anemone - Friday, July 23, 2004 - link
ECC while nice, doesn't seem to come in any high performance modules that aren't registered. And we know these boards don't take registered memory, which would make using ECC memory translate to using something at PC3200 or below.Am I incorrect?
normteke - Thursday, July 22, 2004 - link
I'm pretty new to overclocking. So when you guys say you can bump the fsb to 290 with a lower multiplier and a 1:1 memory ratio, does the memory now have to run at 290 as well, or can it stay at default 200 to keep those tight 2-2-2 memory timings? How exactly does that work?